The Death Sentence.

I'm with it and aginst it.

If you've murdered r hurt one person, Life in prison, without bail or parrol.

But if you've murdered or taken more than two lives, Death. But that puts two families through heartbreak. SO, I'm in a 6 one and half dozen the other sort thing.

Your Lady of Sorrows:

But if you've murdered or taken more than two lives, Death. But that puts two families through heartbreak. SO, I'm in a 6 one and half dozen the other sort thing.

See, that's why I want a death sentence for the first time.

So that there isn't a second time.

People say "The execution of a criminal guarantees that they will not commit a crime again." Of course this is true, but a life sentence without parole does the same thing and it lets the criminal suffer for longer and have the chance to truely regret what they have done. To execute criminals on the hypothesis that they might kill again is preposterous. It's like saying "Don't drive you car ever again in the slight chance that you might cause a fatality."

"Keeping criminals in prison is wasting taxpayers' money"
Wrong! Just one capital case, after all appeals have been exhausted ends up costing taxpayers much more money than life in prison without parole.

Capital punishment is just not effective. It does not discourage further crime. The USA is the only western nation that has not abolished the death penalty. Yet it has eight times the crime rate per head of population, by comparison to other western nations that abolished the death penalty many decades ago.

I got my information from several issues of many different Australian newspapers including The Age and the Herald Sun for anyone who thinks I'm making it up.

Trisha[Bandit]:

His lawyer ought to find some piece of evidence that shows he's not the murderer.

Yeah, they should on every case; thats their job. But its not like the lawyer truly knows whether he's innocent or guilty. Sometimes things just can't be proven. It happens in all judicial systems. If they're proven innocent, if they're still alive, you can pay them compensation and release them immediately to live the rest of their life as normally as possible. Sure, you can't get that time back, but its something. If they've been killed, theres nothing to do other than apologise to the family and maybe pay them some money.

You can't rely on an absolutely faultless system, because they don't exist.

Mud:

You can't rely on an absolutely faultless system, because they don't exist.

True.

To be perfectly honest, you take someone else's life, you deserve to lose your's as well.

Then surely the executioners (or the government that commissioned the execution) deserve to be killed?

Someone quoted earlier, but it really is true. An eye for an eye will make the whole world go blind.

Scout for President.:

No, they don't deserve to.

It's called protecting society.

Murder is not protecting society.

Legally, the death setence is not murder.

Natural life sentences protect society just as effectively, if not more. They're not a danger to society in prison, especially if kept under high security. The USA is one of the few developed countries still supporting capital punishment, and yet it has one of the highest homicide rates in the world. Connection? I don't know, but its worth thinking about. To my way of thinking, killing those who kill (or are suspected of having done so) is just adding fuel to the fire.

Obviously the law doesn't find capital punishment to be murder where it is accepted. But the law only dictates what it legal, not what is right. Its still a human life. Who are we to say who should live and who should die? If you were the one with your hand on the switch to end someone's life, can you honestly tell me you'd pull it?

Mud:

Natural life sentences protect society just as effectively, if not more. They're not a danger to society in prison, especially if kept under high security. The USA is one of the few developed countries still supporting capital punishment, and yet it has one of the highest homicide rates in the world. Connection? I don't know, but its worth thinking about. To my way of thinking, killing those who kill (or are suspected of having done so) is just adding fuel to the fire.

Obviously the law doesn't find capital punishment to be murder where it is accepted. But the law only dictates what it legal, not what is right. Its still a human life. Who are we to say who should live and who should die? If you were the one with your hand on the switch to end someone's life, can you honestly tell me you'd pull it?

My country doesn't have capital punshiment.
There is no connection to the high homicide rates in America and capital punshiment.
If you don't believe in captial punishment, so be it. But please don't try and force your beliefs on me.

Quote

My country doesn't have capital punshiment.
There is no connection to the high homicide rates in America and capital punshiment.
If you don't believe in captial punishment, so be it. But please don't try and force your beliefs on me.

I'm not trying to force my beliefs on you. If you post your opinions on a discussion board, you have to be open to people questioning them. Otherwise it wouldn't be a discussion.

There may or may not be a connection between high homicide rates in the US and capital punishment, but it doesn't really support your statement that capital punishment protects the innocent.

Mud:

Natural life sentences protect society just as effectively, if not more. They're not a danger to society in prison, especially if kept under high security. The USA is one of the few developed countries still supporting capital punishment, and yet it has one of the highest homicide rates in the world. Connection? I don't know, but its worth thinking about. To my way of thinking, killing those who kill (or are suspected of having done so) is just adding fuel to the fire.

Obviously the law doesn't find capital punishment to be murder where it is accepted. But the law only dictates what it legal, not what is right. Its still a human life. Who are we to say who should live and who should die? If you were the one with your hand on the switch to end someone's life, can you honestly tell me you'd pull it?

Can I ask, How does that have a connection?
If someone has been exicuted, how can homicide then be connected to that persons exicution. I don't really understand what you are saying there.
How can the two possibly be connected?
And to a certain extent, I agree with you.
An eye for an eye and the world goes blind. But that doesn't mean it is then right for someone to go killing people.
Not everyone learns from inprisonment, and sometimes prison is actually worse then death.
In some areas, I agree with capital punishment, and in some areas I do not.
But you cannot go around trying to put your point of veiw on others.
Fair enough, state it, but don't try and off load it to others. That isn't fair.

black heart-diamond eyes:

Can I ask, How does that have a connection?
If someone has been exicuted, how can homicide then be connected to that persons exicution. I don't really understand what you are saying there.
How can the two possibly be connected?
And to a certain extent, I agree with you.
An eye for an eye and the world goes blind. But that doesn't mean it is then right for someone to go killing people.
Not everyone learns from inprisonment, and sometimes prison is actually worse then death.
In some areas, I agree with capital punishment, and in some areas I do not.
But you cannot go around trying to put your point of veiw on others.
Fair enough, state it, but don't try and off load it to others. That isn't fair.

I'm not saying there is definitely a connection, but its something to think about. I mean, effectively, the government in question is saying sometimes its ok to kill people in certain circumstances. And then theres reliatory crimes to be considered.

And while not everyone learns from imprisonment, in some circumstances thats not really the point: its keeping them away from the public, for safety. If they're imprisoned, they have to think about what they have done and live with the consequences and I think that that is exactly what they should have to do.

I am sorry if anyone has been offended by my posts, but I think that we have to question the things we feel passionately about. Otherwise things never change. We need to learn from each other. I honestly do want to hear responses and I do consider them, but I don't necessarily have to agree or take that as read.

I disagree with the death sentence ...
the deceased person's family and friends will suffer for life ... so why can't the criminal?
Killing criminals is a way of saying you can kill people and don't have to suffer that much for it ...
that my opinion at least

schizophrenic_cat:

the deceased person's family and friends will suffer for life.

So, when people die of old age, their family suffers all their lives as well?
I highly doubt it. Whether it be murder, or natural death, people go on living their lives. Unless they're weak people and let the past determine their future.

When someone close to you dies, you don't just forget them and move on. The loss of a loved one will stay with you for all of your life. Sure the pain will grow less over time or you learn to cope with it, but it's still there with you and it's still painful. This is what killing a prisoner does to their family. It inflicts the same pain on the criminal's family as they inflicted on their victim's family. Why punish the family and not the criminal?

Well, if someone killed my father, I'm sure as hell that my mother would go and shoot that person. Besides, she wouldn't want to live in fear of that person harming others again.

Trisha[Bandit]:

So, when people die of old age, their family suffers all their lives as well?
I highly doubt it. Whether it be murder, or natural death, people go on living their lives. Unless they're weak people and let the past determine their future.

I think if someone dies of old age ... ir if someone is brutally murdered it well make a difference to the way in which the family reacts to it ...
If someone dies of old age then you've been preparing yourself for it ...
Whilst someone dies out of the blue it's a much larger shock ...

Trisha[Bandit]:

Well, if someone killed my father, I'm sure as hell that my mother would go and shoot that person. Besides, she wouldn't want to live in fear of that person harming others again.

Should she be killed for that? In the eyes of the law, that's murder.

Also, if you are emotionally distressed, you are not likely to be thinking straight. I mean, when we suffer loss, we aren't capable of making rational decisions. So I don't think that argument holds water.

And I agree with the earlier statement that you are punishing the family of the prisoner. To be honest, depending on how long the prisoner spends on death row, its entirely possible that the family will suffer far more than the prisoner. Even natural death is hard to cope with, but when someone else decides when that person should die, it must be unimagineable. And I don't think its fair to say that those whose lives are ruined by the death of others are weak. They're already going to be in a fragile state: a loved one has taken the life of another (possibly bringing guilt into the equation), has ruined their own life and now they're losing that loved one entirely. Not to mention the disruption to their day-to-day life. They can never be expected to carry on regardless.

Mud:

If you were the one with your hand on the switch to end someone's life, can you honestly tell me you'd pull it?

I think in some countries that use capital punishment, they have a group of several people who all press different buttons at the same time. So it's not one person who administered the death sentence, but a few people. You don't know which button it was that killed the person, and you don't know who pressed it.